Hi James,
looking at the the code I think we can safety keep the Weighted*
version AND use external functions you described. It is the same
Comparable/Comparator pattern, WDYT?
best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:09 PM, James Carman
<jcarman@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> My point isn't that we would not need weights ever but we're putting a
> needless restriction on the users (implementing a marker interface). The
> Edge and Vertex interfaces add no value.
>
> The weights can be external, too. It's only a function from edge to
> weight. Your algorithm can take a function for its weights. The files
> library does it similar to this.
> On Mar 2, 2012 3:08 PM, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Having weights on vertices is quite common. Consider any probability
>> transition network. The weight on each node is the probability of being in
>> that state and the weights on the edges are conditional probabilties.
>>
>> Page rank is a related example of having weights on nodes.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Claudio Squarcella <
>> squarcel@dia.uniroma3.it> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Claudio is aware also about algorithms where weights are associated to
>> >> Vertex - he's preparing his PhD research on graphes - maybe he can
>> >> show us a more long-vision roadmap and evaluate benefits on
>> >> simplifying the design.
>> >>
>> >
>> > yes there are algorithms with weights on vertices. Of course those with
>> > weighted edges (like the ones already implemented) are much more
>> widespread
>> > and frequently used, but still we cannot forget about that. Also,
>> although
>> > on a secondary level, labels on vertices/edges are kind of important in
>> > many situations (including testing, debugging) where I think it is good
>> to
>> > keep them distinct from the standard "toString" method (you might want to
>> > represent only a subset of info in the label, etc).
>> >
>> > Matthew Pocock suggested an alternative approach back in the days of
>> > weight abstraction:
>> >
>> > * the graph itself is extremely simple and naked: no weights/labels on
>> > vertices/edges;
>> > * all properties are stored in some external structure, which I
>> > imagine composed of associative maps (Map<Edge, Weight>, etc etc).
>> >
>> > He motivated the idea with a "personal use case": often graphs are used
>> > and reused with the same structure but different weights (and/or labels,
>> > etc). Now if James' question becomes a second use case, maybe it's the
>> > right time to exhume that idea ;)
>> >
>> > Ciao,
>> > Claudio
>> >
>> > --
>> > Claudio Squarcella
>> > PhD student at Roma Tre University
>> > http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~**squarcel<
>> http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~squarcel>
>> > http://squarcella.com/
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<
>> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org>
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org